"Peter P. Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk> writes: (01)
% OK...having started the blaze I'll now fan the flames a bit more ;)
% (My points are purely about Wiki words and not about the utility of
% wikis as information structures. Please allow me to ignore the
% positives for a moment.) (02)
% A series of opinions about Wiki words:
% 1) MashedTogetherWords muck up information retrieval and natural
% language processing. (03)
I disagree. The MashedTogetherWords are the equivilent of German
pulling a bunch of words together to name a concept. (04)
So it enhances natual language processing by making clear that
this is a "named concept". (05)
% 2) How does the Wikiword auto-link process work for all those Asian
% languages that have no gaps between any of the words and no capital
% letters, like Chinese? Mashed wiki words are not internationalised. (06)
I don't do chinese, so I don't understand capitalization in chinese.
but the concept still applies. (07)
% 3) For the purposes of solving the world's major problems spawning
% artificial concepts creates false positives more often than it is
% likely to generate a genuine insight (plus (1) & (2) - auto-
% translation busts). It is not without reason that those philosophers
% that most folks agree talked sense in the last couple of millenia
% were pedantic about the use of language. How do you have an insight
% if you've fogged the picture so that objects within it are not
% distinguishable? (08)
You have to be careful about naming concepts. That is core to any
of these points. (09)
% However, I'm willing to concede that, as Henry van Eyken so
% eloquently pointed out with a story about Native Indian discussions a
% while back, the positive insights that Tom Munnecke is searching for
% are about novel social interactions, and that in this sense the
% subliminal form precedes the detection of its consequences.
% Nevertheless, I maintain that on detection of that novelty it
% requires scrupulous analysis to reveal its full properties and true
% causes, hence traditional conceptual rigour would help at that point,
% imho. (010)
% So I suppose my point boils down to asking what Wikis are really for?
% Saving the world or...? (011)
they are for helping to organized group thinking. And as such,
you must have a way to "name concepts". We often don't do it well enough.
Wiki's force you to do it. (012)
% Cheers,
% --
% Peter
%
% --
% This message is archived at:
%
%
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=3EC15422.2212.22B5AD@localhost (013)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (014)
--
This message is archived at: (015)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=200305132024.h4DKO4k15227@jas.peak.org (016)
|